“The invaders were already there but they grabbed our land – they invaded; those who were there before [were] Garifuna; and they also grabbed a large part of what is currently in the expansion.” 195. According to the proven facts in the instant case, the Court notes that from 2007 to date, the village of Rio Miel has experienced a population growth, as indicated in the 2013 field report, with 30 new houses, equivalent to a population increase of 29% (supra para. 104). Also, according to the AAAS report, the structures in the area covered by the second title that, previously, had not been inhabited by people from Rio Miel (zone 2-B), had increased from 7 in 2002 to 21 in 2013. The said report also mentioned an increase in the deforestation of areas that previously were wooded and in the reserve zone (supra para. 109). In the course of the on-site procedure conducted by the Court, an overflight of the area of the expansion title was made which corroborated that several parts of this area were deforested and/or used to grow crops. Also, several members of the village of Rio Miel indicated that some of the said increases in the occupation of the expansion area corresponded to plots that Garifuna people had rented out to them in that area so that they could work the land. According to the representatives, these “actions prove the failure to ensure effective security and legal stability, because the stability of the lands has not been guaranteed.” 196. Even though the Court does not have updated information on whether this growth entailed greater occupation of territory by the Rio Miel villagers and, specifically of zone 2-B (the expansion territory), it finds it logical to infer that the said areas have been progressively occupied by settlers who are not members of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and are being used mainly for cattle and crops. 197. Therefore, the Court notes that there has been a gradual increase in the thirdparty occupation by outsiders to the community of the territory included in the second title deed granted in 1999, following the increase recorded in the 2007 Cadastral Report. B.3.2 The lands titled to Ambrocio Thomas Castillo and Sergia Zapata Martinez, as well as others mentioned 198. The representatives requested the restitution of all the territory corresponding to the second title, including certain lots previously titled to third parties. 199. It is worth recalling that the property title granted by the State in 1999 expressly excluded 46 hectares 1296.66 m2 which had been titled to two private individuals: (i) Ambrocio Thomas Castillo, who had two lots, one of 22 hectares and 6,575.06 m2 and the other of 3 hectares and 6,197.99 m2, and (ii) Sergia Zapata Martinez, who owned one lot of 19 hectares and 8,523.61 m2 (supra para. 98). It should be noted that, during the visit, several people indicated that Ambrocio Thomas Castillo was Garifuna and that he had already sold his lot to a third party who lives there now (supra para. 106). 200. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Punta Piedra community did not object to the recognition of the lots of Ambrocio Thomas Castillo and Sergia Zapata Martinez in the second property title (supra para. 100), which reveals that this has not been contested before any domestic instance or the land claimed; therefore, it is not incumbent on the Court to rule in this regard. 58